On 09/23/2016 09:36 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On 9/14/2016 10:28 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>> On 14 September 2016 at 00:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:02:49 PM Alex Shi wrote:
>>>> Hi Daniel & Rafael,
>>>> Any comments on this patch?
>>> I actually am not sure about the whole series.
>>> I know your motivation, but honestly the changes here may not be the
>>> best way
>>> to achieve what you need.

Is there some idea for better way?

>>> You may think that the changes are trivial, but in fact they are
>>> not.  There
>>> are side effects and I'm not sure about the resulting user space
>>> interface
>>> at all.

What's concern is abuse of user interface? If the request come from user
level, is there other ways to set a value for this?

>> This patchset has got 2 parts:
>> - one part is about taking into account per-device resume latency
>> constraint when selecting the idle state of a CPU. This value can
>> already be set by kernel (even if it's probably not done yet) but this
>> constraint is never taken into account
>> - the other part is about exposing the resume latency to userspace.
>> This part might raise more discussion but I see one example that could
>> take advantage of this. When you have several clusters of CPUs and you
>> want to dedicate some CPUs  to latency sensitive activity and prevent
>> deep sleep  state on these CPUs but you want to let the other CPUs
>> using all C-state
> The first very basic question about this I have is whether or not the
> device PM QoS mechanism is suitable for the task at hand at all.
> It certainly hasn't been invented with it in mind.

Look though the device PM QoS, this kind of usage seems sensible. So why


Reply via email to